The Portland daily press., 1887-02-07
PRIDE'S AND STRouDWATER
BRIDGES.
DeerIng's and PortIand's Sides OF
the Case.
Good Reasons Why the City Should
Be Relieved OF the Burden.

| The following is the report Of the minorit.
Of the committee on ways and bridges on the
petition Of Portland to be relieved Of TIN
Pride's and Stroudwater bridges:
| 1t appeared In evidence that the bridge Il
which this bill applies lies within the limits
Of the town Of Deering
The town of Falmouth comprised, in 1886
| what are now the towns Of Falmouth, West
brook and Deering In 1876 Falmouth Neck
| in area 1466 acres was set of and, with lS(
| acres lying without and adjoining, incorpOra-
ted as the town Of Portland; In 1914 West
brook was set off from Falmouth, and In
| 1871 Deering was set of from Westbrook
The history of the old town Of Falmouth In
the movement to set of the Meek" shows
that there was an agreement among the in
habitants of the town, aSsented TO in town
meeting and embodied In the act tncOrpOra-
ting Portland, by which the burdens Of sup
porting the many bridges as well as the 9TH
or public burdens Of the town were equalized
so far as possible. There were then within
the limits Of old Falmouth five % large
bridges. The territorial extent Of the
Neck" now Portland, was extremely
small as compared with that Of the rest Of
the town. 1t had but one bridge. and that
lying only in part within its limits. IL had
two-fifths Of the valuation and population.
The division of public burdens seems, un-
der the act incorporating Portland, TO have
been Just and equitable. Portland assumed
and undertook To maintain for her share Of
the bridges lying outside her limits, two %
viz: The one across Fore river at Stroud
water, named Ia this bill, and Pride's bridge
across PreSumpScOt river.
Under this compact Portland has main
tanned these bridges for a century. BY num-
berless acts, extending through all this long
time, 1t has acknowledged its obligation to
support them. No reason has been shown
the minority of your committee why this
compact should be broken On the contrary,
there seems to us to be conclusive reasons
aside from the obligations OF the contract
ing parties which we believe should not be
set aside by the Legislature. why this com
pact should not be abr0gated.
The town Of Deering Is so situated geo
graphically that it Is the neck Of the tunnel
for a vast amount Of travel into and from
the city of Portland. In consequence Of this,
and from its vicinity to the city, it has been
obliged to expend annually, since 1871, upon
its fifty (5O) miles Of roads and bridges, an
average OF $3.50 on every thousand dollars
OF its valuation.
of streets, and upon its bridges less than 50
annually on her thousand dollars Of yalua-
tion.
The ability Of Portland to support these
bridges Is now much greater, comparatively,
than at the time it assumed this obligation.
The valuation Of Portland for 1886
The valuation Of beering for 1855 Is 2.573,9s0
The valuation OF WestDr00k Tor 1856
is....... ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS. 2,25i 900
Total vain of the two towns for 1886, s4s24, 800
Instead of being but four-6fths that Of the
remaining country, as In 1856, the valuation
Of Portland Is now nearly seven times that
OF Westbrook and Deering combined.
And it further appeared in evidence that
the town of Deering under its act of incOr-
poration paid to the town Of Westbrook the
sum of $500 to equalize the burdens Of sup
porting roads and bridges, and that the bridge
to which this bill applies was not taken into
account In this equalization.
The passage Of this bill would therefore
render unjust the adjustment Of the public
burdens between the towns OF WestOrOOk
and Falmouth in 1914 and Deering and West
brook in 1871, and will in our Judgment sub
ject many towns to the danger of having OBJ
legations unjustly imposed upon them and
ancient rights taken away.
(Signed) w. nj. kIDDER,
II. II. WITHAM.